c 6 theory of scanning tunneling microscopy1 - arxiv · pdf filearxiv:1404.0961v1...

arX

iv:1

404.

0961

v1 [

cond

-mat

.mes

-hal

l] 3

Apr

201

4

C 6 Theory of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy1

S. Lounis

Peter Grunberg Institut & Institute for Advanced

Simulation

Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Description of scanning tunneling microscopy 3

3 The concept of tunneling 5

4 Modeling currents 74.1 Bardeen’s approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.2 Tersoff-Hamann model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144.3 Different STM modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174.4 Spin-polarization and tunneling: SP-STM and TAMR-STM .. . . . . . . . . 194.5 Crystal surfaces:k||-Selection in STM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5 Examples of simulations and experiments 275.1 Seeing the Fermi surface in real space via the induced charge oscillations . . . 275.2 Magnetism on surfaces with SP-STM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 315.3 Magnetic domain walls with TAMR-STM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 32

1Lecture Notes of the45th IFF Spring School “Computing Solids - Models, ab initio methods and supercom-puting” (Forschungszentrum Julich, 2014).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0961v1

C6.2 S. Lounis

1 Introduction

Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) is a tool that profoundly shaped nanoscience and nano-technology. Since its invention by Rohrer and Binnig [1, 2, 3], for which they were awardedthe 1986 Nobel prize in Physics, STM experienced revolutionary developments allowing to seefor the first time nanostructures at the atomic scale. Another one is to access spintronics atthe nanolevel. With increasing availability of low-temperature STM, local electronic propertiescan be investigated with unprecedented space and energy resolution which opens the vista tocompletely new applications. STM allowed the rather uniqueability of accessing at the sametime occupied and unoccupied electronic states. In Fig. 1 isshown a schematic view of thechronological achievements of STM during the last 20 years.Although one cannot mentionall important milestones in a single figure, Fig. 1 tells us that after the initial application ofSTM as a visualization tool of substrates at the atomic level(surface topography), it developedquickly into a device for the manipulation of atoms. Indeed in the 90’s, nanostructures such ascorrals were built atom by atom whereby a fundamental quantum property, Friedel oscillationsinduced by the presence of impurities in an electron gas, were observed and confined withinman-made nano-objects [4, 5, 6, 7]. These achievements werethe prelude to functionalizationof nanostructures for different applications, with the aimof characterizing and manipulatingnot only the spin and charge of single atoms or single molecules but also their position in muchbigger nanostructures.At the beginning of the21st century, spin-polarized STM (SP-STM) was invented [8, 9] andapplied for the investigation of magnetic layers on different substrates. It was, for example,found that a manganese monolayer deposited on tungsten(110) substrate is characterized byan antiferromagnetic ground state, confirming previous predictions made with first-principlescalculations [10], and it was nicely shown that contrary to the regular STM, the spin-polarizedversion shows a magnetic superstructure on top of the chemical unit-cell. Magnetic charac-terization is nowadays a routine work, that allowed the discovery of new magnetic states, forexample chirality, induced by the existence of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, was revealedin the magnetic contrast measured on a manganese layer deposited on W(110) surface [11] (SeeChapterC 4 by S. Blugel). Moreover, magnetism of finite nanostructures, nanowires for in-stance, on magnetic surfaces was recently characterized. [12, 13]Being the ubiquitous apparatus for nanoscience, the range of phenomena studied by STM iscontinuously growing. Besides surface topography, and theinvestigation of ground state prop-erties of excitations, vibrational [14], magnetic [15, 16,17, 18] or optical [19] properties, whichallow chemical identification of atoms, and even measurement of their magnetic anisotropyenergy is today a major topic studied with state-of-the-artmachines. Recently, magnetometrymeasurements allowed to extract quantitative values for magnetic exchange interactions amongadatoms separated by large distances! [20, 21] Also other applications and developments ofSTM are geared towards the measurements of adhesion and strength of individual chemicalbonds, friction, studies of dielectric properties, contact charging, molecular manipulation andmany other phenomena from the micrometer down to subnanometer scale. As Chen says in hisbook [22]: It was often said that STM is to nanotechnology what the telescope was to astron-omy. Yet STM is capable of manipulating the objects it observes, to build nanoscale structuresnever existed in Nature. No telescope is capable of bringingMars and Venus together.The actual playground of STM experiments was initially covered mainly by theory. The adventof such an instrument urged the theoretical community for the development of new methods thatallows the understanding and prediction of phenomena accessible with STM (see e.g. Refs. [23,

Theory of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy C6.3

24, 25, 26, 27] or Refs. [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35] and manyothers). It is clear that this toolwill continue to experience further evolutions and to play apivotal role in further developmentsof nanosciences. Thus more challenges will be proposed to theoreticians. It is not a surprise ifafter 20 years from its inventions, several books and reviews were dedicated to this technique,to cite a few see Refs. [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43].The goal of this lecture is to review the basics behind the theory accompanying the experimentwhich could be of interest for readers aiming to work in this field or for those who want toreassess some of the fundamental concepts. Several flavors of the STM method have beendeveloped and invented, we cannot go over all of them but we will discuss the standard onesfollowing partly the book of Chen [22] and the lecture notes of Stefan Blugel [44].

!"#$%$&$'()*&+,-.-&$/0-%123+

80!s 1st vizualisation

!"##"#$%&'%()*%+,-%456+785+97:;<=+

90!s manipulation

."$)&/%&'%()*%0('1/&%2334%563%7899:;+

2000 magnetic characterization

<&"#=&%&'%()*%>?"&#?&%6@@4%8@:5%76:::;+

Fig. 1: Chronological developments of STM. At the early days of its invention, STM was used asa visualization tool for surface topography. It developed into a unique tool that allows accessto occupied and unoccupied electronic states. Then atomic manipulation was achieved andmagnetic contrasts were realized thanks to the spin-polarized STM. We note that it is impossibleto mention all milestones that STM allowed to reach.

2 Description of scanning tunneling microscopy

Before discussing the basic theory explaining the measurements that can be done with STM, adescription of this tool is needed. A crucial ingredient in any STM is the probe tip that is at-tached to a piezodrive, which consists of three mutually perpendicular piezoelectric transducers(x, y and z piezo). Upon applying a voltage, a piezoelectric transducers contracts or expandswhich allows to move the tip on the surface. Since the tip is not touching the substrate, theflowing current,I, is weak and is obtained via a tunneling mechanism through the vacuum.

C6.4 S. Lounis

Fig. 2(a) shows a schematic picture of an STM device. If a biasvoltage,V , is applied betweenthe tip and the sample, the tunneling current can change.

!"#$

%&'()*+$

,$

-%$ -!$

-./$

ψ S

µ ψT

ν

/$ 0$

123$

4$4/$

1)3$

Fig. 2: A schematic picture of STM is shown in (a). A current can flow between the tip and thesubstrate through vacuum via a tunneling mechanism. In quantum mechanics, a particle has anon-zero probability of tunneling through a potential barrier which in the STM case is inducedby the vacuum. A simple barrier as shown in (b) explains the physics of tunneling. When the twoelectrodes are far apart, the wave functions of both electrodes A and B decay into the vacuumwhile the tunneling can take place if the electrodes are closer.

The simplest way to obtain a scanning tunneling microscope image is to directly measure thevariation of the tunnel current as a function of the scanningposition while keeping the distancebetween tip and sample surface constant. A so-called current image is then obtained. Insteadof directly recording the atomic variation of the current, however the usual procedure is tokeep the tunnel current constant while scanning over the surface. This is done by changingthe distance between the tip and surface using a feedback loop. In order to get an image, thevoltage required at the piezoelectric crystal to adjust thedistance is recorded. One obtainsthen the so-called constant-current STM image. A further operation mode is the spectroscopyacquisition by STM. It is usually done by interrupting the feedback in order to keep for theI–V spectroscopy data acquisition the tip-sample separation constant. This can be done at any


desired surface spot or for every pixel in a STM image. An extended discussion of the differentoperating modes will be given once the theory of STM is presented.Obviously, if one wants to understand the working mechanismof STM and simulate the ex-periment, one could think of simulating the whole setup, i.e. considering a tip, a substrate,a bias voltage and calculate the tunneling current or conductance (see e.g. ChapterA 9 byS. Tsukamoto). Although actual ab-initio methods are capable of handling few hundreds upto few thousands of atoms in a unit-cell (see e.g. ChapterD 6 by R. Zeller), technical issuescan occur. For instance, a periodic supercell approach would lead to a non-realistic scenarioof multiples tips scanning the substrate at the same time. Methods based on Green functionsallow to consider two perfect semi-infinite substrates separated by vacuum. One of the sub-strates would simulate the surface, on the other substrate,a model tip can be embedded (see e.g.Ref. [45]). Although this scheme is appealing, one would be facing the problem of choosing theright model for the tip, which is far from being easily accessible experimentally. All of those ar-guments stimulated approximations that are very often usedsuccessfully for the understandingof STM-experiments but they also bear limitations.

3 The concept of tunneling

Here we describe briefly elementary theories of tunneling through a one-dimensional potentialbarrier, which will help us to grasp the basic concept used inSTM. In quantum mechanics, theelectron feeling a potential U(z), for example the one shownin Fig. 2(b) consideringUS =UT = −U , is described by a wave functionψ(z), which satisfies the Schrodinger equation,

− ~2

2m

d2

dz2ψ(z) + U(z)ψ(z) = Eψ(z), (1)

at a given positionz. In this elementary model, the STM setup is simplified to a one-dimensionalpotential barrier where the vacuum is modeled by the potential barrierU , while its left andright sides shown in Fig. 2(b) represent the substrate,S, and the tip,T . WhenE > |U |, the

solutions of Eq. 1 areψ(z) = ψ(0)e±ikz wherek =

√2m(E−|U |)

~is the wave vector. In the

classically forbidden region, within the barrier, the solution is given byψ(z) = ψ(0)e−κz with

κ =

√2m(|U |−E)

~being the decay constant that describes an electron penetrating through the

barrier into the+z direction. The probability density for the observation of an electron near apointz is finite in the barrier region and is proportional to|ψ(0)|2e−2κz. Additionally, electronscan propagate in the opposite direction (−z-direction) indicating that tunneling is bidirectional.The total wave function in every region, sample, barrier andtip are written as:

ψS = eikz + Ae−ikz (2)

ψBarrier = Be−κz + Ceκz (3)

ψT = Deikz (4)

The coefficientsA, B, C andD take care of the reflection and transmission of the electrons,they are obtained by matching of the wave functions and theirderivativesdψ/dz at the twointerfaces, sample–barrier and barrier–tip. The incidentcurrent densityIi = ~k/m and thetransmitted currentIt

It = −i ~

2m

(

ψ∗T (z)

dψT (z)

dz− ψT (z)

dψ∗T (z)

dz

)

=~k

m|D|2 (5)

C6.6 S. Lounis

Element Al Au Cu Ir Ni Pt Si WΦ(eV ) 4.1 5.4 4.6 5.6 5.2 5.7 4.8 4.8κ(A−1) 1.03 1.19 1.09 1.21 1.16 1.22 1.12 1.12

Table 1: Work functions and decay constants according to Ref. [22] for selected materials.

define the barrier transmission coefficientT which is given by the ratio between the transmittedcurrent density and the incident current density:

T =ItIi

= |D|2 = 1

1 + (k2+κ2)2

4k2κ2 · sinh2(κs)(6)

which simplifies in the limit of a strongly attenuating barrier (large decay constantκ)

T ∼ 16κ2k2

(k2 + κ2)2· e−2κs (7)

wheres defines the location of electrodeT (Fig. 2(b)).From this basic model, some important features of a more realistic metal-vacuum-metal tun-neling can be explained. Let us first evaluate the decay constant magnitude which is defineddefined by the work functionΦ primarily if the electrons involved in the tunneling process arelying close to the Fermi energy of both electrodes. IndeedΦ is defined by the minimum energyrequired to remove an electron from the bulk to the vacuum level. In general, the work functiondepends not only on the material, but also on the crystallographic orientation of the surface butto simplify our discussion we assume it to be the same for the tip and sample (ΦS = ΦT = Φ).In our model|US| and|UT | are respectively replaced by their respective work functions. Herethe decay constantκ =

√2mΦ~

is of the order of∼ 1A−1 for the typical values of the workfunction (∼ 5eV ). The typical values of work functions of materials used in STM experiments,together with the decay constants, are listed in Table 1. According to Eq. 7, the current decaysby one order of magnitude per 1A.Even though this model is too simple to describe realistic STM experiments it explains thehigh sensitivity to height changes in the sample topography. Also it demonstrates that duringtunneling, the tip’s atom, that is the closest to the substrate, is the main atom involved in thetunneling process!From this simple one dimensional model one can derive the principle used by Binning andRohrer when they invented the STM. Their argument to explainthe ability of STM to achievelarge lateral resolutions and by that probe the electronic structures of various materials at anatomic scale (∼ 2A) is: because of the tunneling through vacuum, a large lateral resolutionmuch smaller than the radius of the tip-end,R, is possible if the distance between the tip-endand the sample surface,∆z, is much smaller than the tip radius [46]. Near the tip-end, thecurrent lines are almost perpendicular to the sample surface (Fig. 3). At a point∆x on the tip,the distance to the sample surface,z, is increased by

∆z ∼ ∆x2

2R. (8)

Assuming that at each point the tunneling current density follows the formula for the one-dimensional case, Eq. 7, the lateral current distribution is

I(∆x) ∼ e−2κ∆x2

2R . (9)


Typically,κ ∼ 1A−1. ForR = 10A, at∆x ∼ 4.5A, the current drops by a factor of∼ e−2, thatis about one order of magnitude. The diameter of such a current column is the resolution limit,which is about 9A. Therefore with moderate means, a very high lateral resolution is expected.Nowadays, achievements of STM largely exceeds this expectation.

R

2∆x

Fig. 3: Estimation of the lateral resolution in STM. Out of a spherical tip model with radiusRvery close to the surface, the lateral resolution of STM can be evaluated. The tunneling currentis concentrated at the vicinity of the closest point to the substrate.

4 Modeling currents

4.1 Bardeen’s approach

One-dimensional case

The planar tunneling junction problem treated by Bardeen isschematically shown in Fig. 2(b).The model used by Bardeen, called also the transfer Hamiltonian method [47], and extendedlater on by Tersoff and Hamann [23, 24] and Chen [25, 26] to STM, has naturally limitations byits assumptions but gives a fundamental understanding on the ability of STM to reach high spaceand energy resolution. Here are some assumptions that are assumed in the original derivationof the Bardeen’s approach:First of all, the electron tunneling is treated as a one-particle process, i.e. the mutual interactionbetween electrons during tunneling is neglected which is a reasonable approximation in the lowtunneling regime. Furthermore, a direct interaction of tipand sample resulting in the formationof coupled electronic states is not taken into account. Thisassumption is valid if the tip-sampledistance is large enough, i.e. a distance larger than∼ 4A should be sufficient. Note that in ourdiscussion elastic tunneling is assumed, i.e. no energy loss of the electrons with quasi-particlesof the electrodes, e.g. plasmons, phonons, spin-excitations is considered in this section. Ofcourse, recently models taking care of this kind of interactions were developed (see ChapterC7 by M. Wegewjis for detailed examples) and a simple discussion on the treatment of inelastictunneling is given later on in this manuscript.

C6.8 S. Lounis

When the two electrodes, representing the tip and the sample, are far apart, the wave func-tions of electrodeS, representing the unperturbed substrate, or of the unperturbed electrodeT ,representing the tip, satisfy the Schrodinger equation ofthe free electrodeS or T ,

i~∂ψi

∂t=

(

− ~2

2m

∂2

∂z2+ Ui

)

ψi, (10)

whereUi is the potential function of electrodei (S or T ), andψi depends on both time andspatial coordinates. The stationary states areψi = ψi

µe−iEi

µt/~ with the spatial wave functionsand energy eigenvalues satisfying

(

− ~2

2m

∂2

∂z2+ Ui

)

ψiµ = Ei

µψiµ, (11)

Once the distance between the two electrodes is reduced, thetime-evolution of a stateψ in thesystem tip-sample is governed by the Schrordinger equation containing the full potential:

i~∂ψ

∂t=

(

− ~2

2m

∂2

∂z2+ US + UT

)

ψ. (12)

The time-evolution can be treated in perturbation theory. At t → −∞, the tip is far from thesubstrate and an electron is stationary in a stateψS

µ of the sample. We assume that the tip isapproached slowly towards the sample and thereby the tip potential is turned on adiabatically.The adiabatic consideration is reasonable since the time-scale of electrons are femtoseconds(∼ 10−15sec) while the time needed to move the tip is in seconds. Formally we describe thisadiabatic switching of the perturbation via a time-dependent potential

UT (t) = eηt/~UT , and η > 0. (13)

UT is a constant andη is small and positive. At the end of our derivation, when we considerη → 0, the potential will be constant for all times. With the presence of the combined potential,a stateψS

µ described by Eq. 11 att = −∞ will not evolve according to Eq. 10. Instead it has aprobability of populating the states of electrodeT , denoted asψT

ν . Our goal is to measure thatprobability since it is directly related to the tunneling current.The stateψ of the whole system can be expanded in a linear combination ofthe sample and tipeigenfunctions (as calculated before the perturbation is switched on), which form an orthogonaland complete basis set:

ψ = aµ(t)ψSµe

−iESµ t/~ +

∞∑

ν=1

cν(t)ψTν e

−iETν t/~. (14)

In our ansatz,aµ(t) andcν(t) are coefficients to be determined by Eq. 12 withaµ(−∞) = 1andcν(−∞) = 0. We note that in our ansatz the time evolution coefficientsaµ(t) andcν(t)is due solely to the presence of the time dependence inUT (t). As we shall see, this separa-tion is convenient because the time evolution coefficients satisfy a relatively simple differentialequation.It is important to note that each set of wave functionsψS

µ andψTν originates from different

Hamiltonians. Neither of them is an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian of the combined system.A basic assumption of Bardeen’s tunneling theory is that thetwo sets of wave functions are


approximately orthogonal,∫ψT∗µ ψS

ν d3r ≈ 0. Inserting Eq. 14 into Eq. 12 and after projection

on the stateψTν , we obtain

i~dcν(t)

dt=⟨ψTν

∣∣UT

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩e−i(ES

µ−ETν +iη)t/~ +

∞∑

λ=1

cλ(t)⟨ψTν

∣∣US

∣∣ΨT

λ

⟩e−i(ET

λ−ET

ν )t/~. (15)

Here we considered the following small approximations: (i)because of the adiabatic approxi-mation we considered the prefactora(t) to be slowly varying, i.e.d

dtaµ(t) = 0 andaµ(t) = 1,

and (ii) a second contribution∼(eηt/~ − 1

)is neglected since it vanishes atη → 0.

This equation can be solved iteratively but we limit ourselves to the first order of time-dependentperturbation theory and neglect the second term on the right-hand side of the previous equationsince it is a second-order infinitesimal quantity. Therefore, to first-order,

i~dcν(t)

dt=⟨ψTν

∣∣UT

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩e−i(ES

µ−ETν +iη)t/~. (16)

SinceUT is non-zero only in the volume of electrodeT (at z > s, see Fig. 2), the integral⟨ψTν

∣∣UT

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩, that defines the tunneling matrix elementMµν , is evaluated only in the right-

hand side of the separation surface. This tunneling matrix element describes the projection ofthe initial stateψS

µ perturbed by the potentialUT onto the final stateψTν . After integration over

time we get

cν(t) =1

Eµ −Eν + iηMµνe

−i(ESµ−ET

ν +iη)t/~. (17)

|cν(t)|2 describes the probability that an electron initially described by the stateψSµ in time

t = −∞ populates a stateψTν at timet,

|cν(t)|2 =e2ηt/~

(ES

µ − ETν

)2+ η2

|Mµν |2 , (18)

which leads to the tunneling probability per unit time,Pµν(t) =ddt|cν(t)|2,

Pµν(t) =2η

(ES

µ − ETν

)2+ η2

e2ηt/~1

~|Mµν |2 , (19)

where we can recognize the definition of theδ(x) distribution given byδ(x) = 1πlimη→0

ηx2+η2

.

Taking the limitη → 0 we find

Pµν(t) =2π

~δ(ES

µ −ETν

)|Mµν |2, (20)

which is the famous Fermi’s Golden Rule, that is a general result of first order time-dependentperturbation theory (The Golden Rule is also derived in Chapter A 5 by Ph. Mavropoulos).Elastic tunneling is guaranteed by the delta functionδ

(ES

µ − ETν

). The tunneling currentI is

proportional toePµν wheree is the elementary electron charge.Up to now we have considered the tunneling process involvinga single stateµ to a single stateν. However the tip and substrate are characterized by a continuous spectrum of states, thuswe have to consider the sum over statesµ andν for every spin channel. Naturally an electroncan only tunnel from an occupied stateψS

µ to an unoccupied stateψTν and vice-versa. At zero

temperature, there is a sharp Fermi edge separating occupied and unoccupied states while at

C6.10 S. Lounis

elevated temperatures the Fermi edge is smeared out; occupied states are then described by theFermi-Dirac distributionf(E − EF ) = (1 + exp [(E −EF )/kBT ])

−1 while unoccupied statesare described by1− f(E−EF ). Accounting for the occupation in this manner and assuming abias voltageV , the tunneling current in thermal equilibrium from sample to tip, IS→T , and fromtip to sample,IT→S can be written as:

IS→T =4πe

~

∑

νµ

f(ESµ −ES

F )[1− f(ET

ν −ETF )]|Mµν |2 δ(ET

ν − ESµ − eV ) (21)

IT→S =4πe

~

∑

νµ

f(ETµ − ET

F )[1− f(ES

ν − ESF )]|Mµν |2 δ(ET

ν − ESµ − eV )

A factor 2 has been introduced accounting for the two possible spin states of each electron. Thedifference between the two currents gives a net total tunneling current:

I =4πe

~

∑

νµ

[f(ES

µ − ESF )− f(ET

ν − ETF )]|Mµν |2 δ(ET

ν − ESµ − eV ). (22)

The finite summation over the discrete states can be replacedby an integral over energies usingthe density of staten(E):

∑

µ →∫n(E)dE and after an appropriate change of variable we

find

I =4πe

~

∫

dǫ[f(ET

F − eV + ǫ)− f(ESF + ǫ)

](23)

×nT (ETF − eV + ǫ)nS(ES

F + ǫ)∣∣M(ES

F + ǫ, ETF − eV + ǫ)

∣∣2

wherenS andnT are the density of states (DOS) of the substrate and of the tip. We findformally that the tunneling current depends explicitly on the electronic structure of both the tipand substrate which has important consequences on STM measurements. Interestingly at zerotemperature or ifkBT is smaller than the energy resolution required in the measurement, theFermi distribution function can be approximated by a step function and the current simplifies to

I =4πe

~

∫ eV

0

dǫnT (ETF − eV + ǫ)nS(ES

F + ǫ)|M |2 (24)

and for a very small bias voltage

I =4πe

~V nT (ET

F )nS(ES

F )|M |2. (25)

The differential conductivity, which is the other quantitymeasured experimentally, is given by

dI

dV=

4πe

~nT (ET

F )nS(ES

F + eV )|M(ESF + eV, ET

F )|2. (26)

This explains the unique power of STM to be able to access the occupied and unoccupiedelectronic states of the substrate. Indeed this can be achieved by changing the sign of the biasvoltageV .


!!"#$% "&$% "'$% "($%

Fig. 4: Schematic representation of inelastic tunneling with STM (according to Wilson Ho) isshown in (a). If the electron has enough energy, provided by the bias potential, to trigger theexcitation mode an additional tunneling channel is created. The slope giving the tunnelingcurrent versus the bias voltage (b) changes at a bias voltagecorresponding to the frequency ofthe excitation mode. Taking the first and second derivativeslead to a step-like function (c) or toa resonance (d) at~ω.

Inelastic tunneling

Although the rest of this lecture is devoted to elastic tunneling phenomena, inelastic tunnelingwithin the Bardeen approach is described briefly in this section. Within STM, these excitationswere observed for vibrations (see e.g. [14]), photons (see e.g. [19]) and for spin-excitations (seee.g. [15, 16, 17, 18, 57]).We have learned earlier that the current and differential conductivity is proportional to the DOSof the substrate and of the tip. Now imagine that on the substrate a molecule is deposited whichis characterized by a vibrational mode or a spin excitation mode. If the tunneling current cantrigger the excitation, i.e. the tunneling electrons couple to the excitation mode and by thatloose their energy, additional tunneling channels can be created. More tunneling possibilitiestranslates to an increase in the tunneling current. Fig. 4 shows schematically how the slope ofthe current versus the bias voltage increases suddenly at the voltage, or energy, correspondingto the excitation mode. If one calculates or measures the differential conductivity, one obtainsstep-like functions in the spectra, and a second derivativeof the current leads to resonanceslocated at the excitation energies.Consider that the potential of the sampleUS contains a vibrating adatom and is time-dependentUS + U0 cos(ωt), whereU0 is the amplitude of the vibration andω is the vibrational frequencyof the adatom. We apply once more first order time-dependent perturbation theory as discussedpreviously and find:

i~dcν(t)

dt=Mµνe

−i(ESµ−ET

ν +iη)t/~ + δMµν cos(ωt)e−i(ES

µ−ETν )t/~ (27)

whereMµν is the elastic tunneling matrix element⟨ψTν

∣∣UT

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩and δMµν is the inelastic

counterpart⟨ψTν

∣∣U0

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩.

After integration, the inelastic contribution to the coefficientcν in Eq. 27 is

δcν(t) =δMµν

2

[e(Eµ−Eν+~ω)t/~

Eµ − Eν + ~ω+e(Eµ−Eν−~ω)t/~

Eµ − Eν − ~ω

]

. (28)

C6.12 S. Lounis

The probability is thus simply given by2

|δcν |2 = |δMµν |2(sin2[(Eµ − Eν + ~ω)t/2~]

(Eµ − Eν + ~ω)2+

sin2[(Eµ − Eν − ~ω)t/2~]

(Eµ − Eν − ~ω)2+ cross terms

)

.

The functionsin2(xt/2~)/x2 reaches its maximum whenx = 0 and approach rapidly zero forx 6= 0. In the limit of long timet, this function is nothing else than a delta function:tπδ(x)/2~,which ensures that the inelastic tunneling occurs atEµ − Eν − ~ = ±~ω. Finally we give theprobability rate as done in the previous section:

δPµν =d|δcµ|2dt

∝ π

2~|δMµν |2δ(Eµ −Eν ± ~ω) (29)

Therefore in addition to the elastic tunneling term, we havean additional term when the excita-tion is created, i.e. the energy level of the electronic state changes by an amount~ω. We notethat several theoretical methods were developed in order tounderstand how STM probes excita-tions. For instance, for spin-excitations, some are based on a Heisenberg Hamiltonian (see e.g.Refs.[29, 30, 31, 32]) and beyond[33], others are based on time-dependent density functionaltheory [34, 35].

Bardeen’s Tunneling Matrix elements

We derived earlier the tunneling current and the differential conductivity in the Bardeen’s ap-proach, we investigate in the following the tunneling matrix elementMµν . Using Eq. 11, theintegral defining the tunneling matrix elementMµν =

⟨ψTν

∣∣UT

∣∣ψS

µ

⟩can be converted into a

surface integral only depending on the unperturbed wave functions of the two electrodes at theseparation surface. By applying Eq. 11, we have

Mµν =

∫

z>z0

ψSµ

(

ETν +

~2

2m

∂2

∂z2

)

ψT∗ν d3r. (30)

Because of the elastic tunneling condition,ESµ = ET

ν , the form giving the tunneling matrixelement can be converted into

Mµν =

∫

z>z0

(

ψSµE

Sµψ

T∗ν + ψS

µ

~2

2m

∂2

∂z2ψT∗ν

)

d3r. (31)

UsingMµν =⟨ψSµ

∣∣UT

∣∣ψT

ν

⟩and noticing that, on the tip side, the sample potentialUS is zero,

we obtain

Mµν = − ~2

2m

∫

z>z0

(

ψT∗ν

∂2ψSµ

∂z2− ψ∗S

µ

∂2ψTν

∂z2

)

d3r. (32)

With the identity

ψT∗ν

∂2ψSµ

∂z2− ψS

µ

∂2ψT∗ν

∂z2=

∂

∂z

[

ψT∗ν

∂ψSµ

∂z− ψS

µ

∂ψT∗ν

∂z

]

, (33)

the integration overz can be carried out to obtain

Mµν =~2

2m

∫

z=z0

[

ψSµ

∂ψT∗ν

∂z− ψT∗

ν

∂ψSµ

∂z

]

dxdy. (34)

2Other cross terms are not considered here


The last equation gives Bardeen’s tunneling matrix elementin a one-dimensional form. It is asurface integral of the wave functions (and its normal derivatives) of the two free electrodes,evaluated at the separation surface. The potential barrierinformation does not appear explicitly,and only the information of the wave functions at the separation surface is required. Further-more, the formula is symmetric with regards to both electrodes. It is the basis of the reciprocityprinciple in STM, which has important consequences in designing and interpreting experimentalresults.Although derived for the one-dimensional case, the Bardeenapproach can be extended to thethree-dimensional case where the tunneling matrix element, Eqs. 32 and 34, change to

Mµν =~2

2m

∫

ΩT

[ψSµ∆ψ

T∗ν − ψT∗

ν ∆ψSµ

]· d~r (35)

and

Mµν =~2

2m

∫

Σ

[

ψSµ~∇ψT∗

ν − ψT∗ν~∇ψS

µ

]

· d~S (36)

where the surface integral is performed on the separation surface,Σ, between the volume defin-ing the sample and the volume defining the tip.

Energy dependence of tunneling matrix elements

The assumption, that the tunneling matrix elementM is a constant, is reasonable for a small biasvoltage window. However, in scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) experiments, the energyscale can be as large as±2eV . Thus the energy dependence of the tunneling matrix elementcannot be overlooked. The variation of|M | with energy can be evaluated from the Bardeenformula, Eq. 34.In the gap region, the wave function of electrodeS is:

ψSµ (z) = ψS

µ (0)e−κS

µz, (37)

whereκSµ =

√

2m|ESµ |/~ is the decay constant corresponding to the energy eigenvalue ofψS

µ .

Similarly, in the gap region, the wave function of electrodeT is

ψTν (z) = ψT

ν (s)eκTν (z−s). (38)

Because of the condition of elastic tunneling (ESµ = ET

ν ), the two decay constants are equal,

κTν = κ

Sµ =

√

2mESµ

~(39)

Inserting the previous equations into Eq. 34, we obtain

Mµν =~2

2me−κS

µ s

∫

z=z0

2κSµψ

Sµ (0)ψ

Tν (s)dxdy. (40)

As expected, the tunneling matrix element is independent ofthe position of the separation sur-face,z = z0. The expression in the integral is a constant, becauseψT

ν (s) is the value of thewave function of electrodeT at its surface. The energy dependence ofM is through the decay

C6.14 S. Lounis

constantκSµ . Qualitatively, the effect of the energy dependence of the tunneling matrix ele-

ment on the tunneling current is as follows. Once the integration over energies is carried out inEq. 24, we realize that the value ofe−κS

µs near the top of the integral is bigger than its value nearthe bottom. Therefore, the energy spectrum of electrodeT near the Fermi level and the emptystates energy from the spectrum of electrodeS electrons about eV above the Fermi level are thedominant contributors to the integral in Eq. 24.We have learned from the Bardeen’s approach to calculate thetunneling current, that the exactelectronic structure of tip and sample is required. In principle it is possible to calculate themfor both systems with the actually available ab-initio methods and to compute all tunnelingmatrix elements to gain the tunneling current. Although quite elaborate, this scheme is possible.However, the tip structure is not straightforward to accessexperimentally which complicatesthe task of simulating the STM tip. This issue pushed the development of models, as the onedescribed in the next section, that simplify the tip’s electronic structure. The simplest approachis to get rid off the tip.

4.2 Tersoff-Hamann model

After the invention of STM, Tersoff and Hamann formulated a model [23, 24] based on Bardeen’stunneling theory which is widely used today. Here we describe its concept, derivation and lim-itations.

The essence of the model

The driving argument behind the Tersoff-Hamann (TH) model is the difficult access to thetip states. Those, as we have learned in the previous sections, are important in the imagingmechanism of STM since the tunneling current is a convolution of electronic states of the tipto those of the sample. Therefore, a particular model of the tip was proposed, such that the tipproperties can be simplified and factorized out of the problem. The TH model represents thetip with potential and wave functions arbitrarily localized, in words, modeled as a geometricalpoint. Consequently, the STM image is related to the properties of the surface alone. Thus,according to that model, STM measures an intrinsic propertyof the unperturbed surface, ratherthan a property of the joint surface-tip system.The TH model has proven to be extremely valuable in interpreting the STM images with char-acteristic feature sizes of≥ 10A, for example, the profiles of superstructures of surface recon-struction, the scattered waves of surface states, as well asdefects, adsorbates, and substitutionatoms on the surface. However, the TH model predicts that thecorrugation of atomic-scalefeatures (with typical length scale close to or smaller than3A) is about one picometer or evensmaller, which is beyond the detection limit of STM. Also it cannot always explain the richexperimental observations due, obviously, to the convolution of tip electronic states and sampleelectronic states.

Derivation of TH model

The STM tip is modeled as a locally spherical potential well centered at~RT . Once more, thesample surface is represented by thez = 0 plane. In Bardeen’s model the potentials of the tipand sample are negligible in the separation planeΣ. Therefore in the vacuum region, both wave


functions of sample and tip near the Fermi level satisfy the Schrodinger equation

− ~2

2m∆ψ = −Φψ or ∆ψ = κ

2ψ, (41)

With the approximation that the tip is just a single atom which has ans-orbital as wave function,this equation has two solutions, an irregular and a regular solution, which are the spherical,modified Bessel functions of first and second kind. We are interested in the regular solution thatis characterized by an exponential decay from tip to vacuum.Thus the solution of the previousequation is given by the modified Bessel function of the second kind

ψTν (~r − ~RT ) = Ck

(1)0 (κ|~r − ~RT |) = C

e−κ|~r−~RT |

κ|~r − ~RT |(42)

where |~r − ~RT | 6= 0 since the solution is obtained in the vacuum at position~r andC is anormalization constant.Inserting this ansatz for the tip wave function into the expression for the matrix tunneling ele-ment (Eq. 35) yields

Mµν(~RT ) = −C~2

2m

∫

ΩT

[

k(1)0 (κ|~r − ~RT |)∆ψS

µ (~r − ~RT )− ψSµ (~r − ~RT )∆k

(1)0 (κ|~r − ~RT |)

]

d~r.

(43)Since the sample potential vanishes in the body of the tip we can apply the vacuum Schrodingerequation to the first term of the integrand. The second term has a singularity at~r = ~R andcan be simplified recalling the relation between the modifiedBessel functionk(1)0 and the Greenfunction of the vacuum Schrodinger equation:

∆G(~r − ~r′) = −4πδ(~r − ~r′). (44)

SinceG(~r − ~r′) = κk(1)0 (κ|~r − ~r′|), we rewrite∆k(1)0 in Eq. 43 as(κ2k

(1)0 − 4πδ/κ) and by

that the tunneling matrix element for the case of as-wave function simplifies in the TH modelto

Mµν(~RT ) = −2πC~2

κmψSµ (~RT ) (45)

This is the central result of the TH model of STM although the original derivation is a bitlonger. If the tip state is spherically symmetric around a point ~RT , effectively, it is equivalentto a geometrical point at~RT . Hence, the tunneling matrix element is directly proportional tothe value of the sample wave function at the position of the apex atom. Now we are able tocalculate the tunneling current following Bardeen’s formulation at low temperature:

I(~RT , V ) =16π3C2~3e

κ2m2nT

∫ eV

0

dǫnS(~RT , ESF + ǫ) (46)

wherenT is a constant in the TH model since the wave function of the tipis of s-type andnS(~RT , ǫ) =

∑

µ δ(ESµ − ǫ)|ψS

µ (~RT )|2. Eq. 46 expresses that the integral includes all states

of the sample at the tip location between the Fermi energy andthe Fermi energy shifted bythe applied bias voltage: the tunneling current is proportional to the integrated local density ofstates (ILDOS) of the sample.

C6.16 S. Lounis

For a small bias voltage, the previous equation simplifies further to

I(~RT , V ) =16π3C2~3e2

κ2m2V nTnS(~RT , E

SF ). (47)

For the differential conductivity we obtain for finiteV

dI(~RT , V )

dV=

16π3C2~3e

κ2m2nTnS(~RT , E

SF + eV ). (48)

Thus the tunneling current and the differential conductivity are proportional to the density ofstatesnS(~RT , E

SF + eV ) in the vacuum. The last three equations are the most used onesin

the interpretation, simulation and prediction of STM-images for realistic systems. We notethat an absolute value of the current within this scheme cannot be computed since the constantC is unknown. From the TH model, one can simulate the importantSTM modes mentionedin Section 2. For example, in the constant-current mode (I = const.), where topographicimages are obtained, we useI ∼ eV nS(~RT , E

SF ) valid for eV << Φ. Hence, the task is

simply to look fornS(~RT , ESF ) = const. In the spectroscopic mode,dI/dV is computed from

∼ nS(~RT , ESF + eV ), in other words the calculation of the spectroscopic imagesobtained with

STM boils down to the computation of the sample’s DOS in vacuum.The basic assumption of this extremely simple result is that, except for thes-wave tip wavefunction, all other tip wave functions can be neglected. Therefore it is often called the s-wavetip model. It is important to know under which condition the s-wave-only assumption is valid.The TH model is highly valuable in the interpretation of STM images. It represents an approx-imation with which the complicated problem of tip electronic states can be avoided.What if the STM-tip is more complicated than what is assumed in the TH-model? For example,other orbitals, than thes, can be characterizing the apex atom. Chen [25, 26] proposedanelegant method, discussed in the upcoming subsection, thatextends the TH-model.

Chen’s expansion of the Tersoff-Hamann model

The problems which arise from the Tersoff-Hamann model can be overcome by expandingthe model using generalized wave functions for the tip. Suchan expansion was introducedby Chen [25, 26] who considered the general solutions of the vacuum Schrodinger equation(Eq. 41)

ψT (~r − ~RT ) =∑

l,m

Clmk(1)l (κ|~r − ~RT |)Ylm(| ~r − ~RT |) (49)

whereYlm are the spherical harmonics andk(1)1 are modified spherical Bessel functions of thesecond kind whileClm is a renormalization coefficient. For the casel = 0 we recover the THmodel as detailed in the previous subsection. Using the property of the Bessel function:

k(1)l (u) = (−1)lul

(1

u

d

du

)l

k(1)0 (u) (50)

one can evaluate the contribution of a tip-orbitall to the tunneling current just by proceedingto thelth derivative with respect to the argument of modified Bessel function with l = 0. For


example, if the tip is described by apz-type orbital we have

ψTpz(~(r)− ~RT ) = Cpzk

(1)1 (κ|~r − ~R|)Y10(| ~r − ~RT |) (51)

= Cpz

d

dRk(1)0 (κ|~r − ~RT |)

∂R

∂z

=Cpz

Cs

∂

∂zψTs (~r − ~RT ).

Inserting this wave function in the Bardeen’s formula for the tunneling matrix elements in theTH model, we obtain for thepz orbital

Mµν = −2πCpz~2

κm

∂

∂zψSµ (~RT ). (52)

This means, that the matrix element is proportional to the derivative of the sample wave functionwith respect toZ at the position of the tip, if the tip is described by apz-type orbital. In thisway the matrix element can be derived also for higher order orbitals, which is known as thederivative rule of Chen [25, 26].Usingp- or d-type orbitals for the tip, the experimentally observed corrugation amplitudes ofdensely packed metal surfaces can be explained. In Table 4.2the tunneling matrix elements aregiven for different orbitals. With the help of this rule, Chen could explain the high corrugationamplitude observed in some systems.The extension of Chen provides an explanation of the high corrugation amplitudes measured onclose-packed metal surfaces contradictory to the low corrugation amplitudes due to their localdensity of states. This is the case, for example, forpz anddz2 orbitals since they possess chargedensity stretching out further from the tip apex into the vacuum than that of ans-wave andthey act similar to ans-wave at a reduced distance from the sample surface. This affects thetunneling current quite strongly and by that the images obtained experimentally. Interestingly,orbitals likedxy anddxz,yz are expected to produce a large tunneling current not with the tipapex atom located on top of a surface atom but rather at a hollow site of the surface. Due totheir particular charge density distribution a large overlap with sample orbitals occurs in thisconfiguration.

4.3 Different STM modes

Now that we know how to compute the tunneling current, it is interesting to connect this quantityto the different STM standard modes. For a given bias, the physical quantity measured by theSTM is the tunneling current, which is a function of the lateral coordinates(x, y) and thez-coordinate:I = I(x, y, z). If z is perpendicular to a nearly flat surface, the tunneling current canbe decomposed into a constant (that is independent of(x, y)) and a small variable componentthat represents the features or corrugation of the surface,

I(x, y, z) = I0(z) + ∆I(x, y, z), (53)

with the condition|∆I(x, y, z)| << |I0(z)|.The constant-current topographic image can be derived fromthe current images by making theansatz:z(x, y) = z0 +∆z(x, y) and substituting it into the previous equation by proceeding toa Taylor expansion we find

I = I0(z0) +

(dI0(z)

dz

)

∆z(x, y) + ∆I(z, y, z). (54)

C6.18 S. Lounis

Orbital of the tip Matrix element M

s 2πC~2

κmψS(~RT )

px2πC~2

κm∂∂xψS(~RT )

py2πC~2

κm∂∂yψS(~RT )

pz2πC~2

κm∂∂zψS(~RT )

dzx2πC~2

κm∂2

∂z∂xψS(~RT )

dzy2πC~2

κm∂2

∂z∂yψS(~RT )

dxy2πC~2

κm∂2

∂x∂yψS(~RT )

dz2− 1

3r2

2πC~2

κm

(∂2

∂z2ψS(~RT )− 1

3κ2ψS(~RT )

)

dx2−y22πC~2

κm

(∂2

∂x2ψS(~RT )− ∂2

∂y2ψS(~RT )

)

Table 2: Tunneling matrix elements as formulated by Chen [22] using the derivative rule. Notethat the constantC depends on the orbital-type of the tip involved in the tunneling process.


Owing to the smallness of∆I, its variation can be neglected. The topographic image is thereforedefined by the condition of constant current, i.e.I = I0(z0), thus

∆z(x, y) = − ∆I(x, y)

dI0(z)/dz. (55)

It is interesting to note that experimentally when scanningthe sample surface with the tip thereare two different modes of operation, the constant-height and the constant-current mode. Inconstant-height mode, the vertical positionz of the tip is held constant while scanning andthe resulting tunnel current between tip and sample is measured. In constant-current modea feedback loop provides a constant tunnel current between tip and sample at every position(x, y). This means that thez-position of the tip has to be adjusted during scanning whichisdone by applying an appropriate voltageVz to thez-piezo of the tube scanner. One distinguishesbetween these two extreme modes of operation even though neither of them can be realizedexperimentally and one can only approximate one or the otherby choosing the appropriateparameters for the feedback loop gain and the scan speed.The differential tunneling conductivity,dI/dV , is also a frequently used image parameter. Ex-perimentally the tunneling spectrum at each point(x, y) can be obtained by interrupting thefeedback circuit, applying a voltage ramp, then acquiring the tunneling current. The differentialtunneling conductivity can be obtained by numerically differentiating the acquired tunnelingcurrent data.

4.4 Spin-polarization and tunneling: SP-STM and TAMR-STM

If the tunnel current flows between two magnetic electrodes,an additional information will becontained in the tunneling current, namely the informationon the magnetic properties of theelectrodes. Thus, if the STM tip is spin-polarized, in otherwords, the DOS for the majority-spin (↑) channel is different from the DOS for the minority-spin (↓) channel, access to the localspin-polarization of the probed substrate is possible (Figs. 5(a) and (b)). This is the conceptof spin-polarized STM (SP-STM). By assuming that the electron spin is conserved during thetunneling process, the↑-electrons from the tip can only tunnel into unoccupied↑-states in thesample; the same for the↓-electrons (Fig. 5(b)). When the magnetization directionsof the twoelectrodes are in parallel alignment the tunnel current is different compared to the antiparallelalignment.In fact Julliere [48] first discovered this spin valve effect, or tunneling magnetic resistance(TMR), in planar Fe-Ge-Co tunnel junctions effect which showed a decreased conductance inthe case of non-parallel alignment of the electrodes magnetization compared to the parallel case.In a theoretical work, Slonczewski extended the model of tunneling in one dimension consid-ering spin-polarized electrodes [49]. While the experiments of Julliere had to be realized atvery low temperatures, the TMR effect at room temperature was achieved in the 90’s by Mood-era [50] and Miyazaki [51]. This allows for the application of the TMR effect in read headsof modern hard disk drives. Furthermore, the discovery of the TMR gave rise to the develop-ment of the magneto-resistive random-access memory (MRAM)– a non-volatile random-accessmemory technology.Due to spin-orbit coupling (SOC), the resistance can becomeanisotropic, i.e., it depends onthe magnetization direction of the tunnel junction with respect to the crystallographic axes assketched in Fig. 5(c). For the observation of this effect thetunneling junction needs only asingle magnetic electrode separated from a nonmagnetic electrode by an insulating layer. In

C6.20 S. Lounis

!"#$%&'((

)*+(

!M

T!M

S

,"-+.%(

/0(

/0(

%1(

)*+(

,"-+.%(

$(2/3(

$(2/3(

!M

S

,"-+.%(

$(2/3(

$(2/3(45$(-"#$%&'((

)*+(

2"3(

2'3(

263(

,78,)!(

,78,)!()9!:(

Fig. 5: Spin-polarized tunneling with SP-STM shown schematicallyin (a) and (b). In (b), thespin-polarized DOS of the tip and sample are depicted. With spin conservation, electrons fromthe tip with spin↑ can tunnel into unoccupied states of the sample with the samespin character.The same tunneling process occurs with spin↓. In (c) a sketch of TAMR is shown. The tunneljunction comprises a non-magnetic tip and a magnetic sample. Because of spin-orbit couplingthe tunneling current can be sensitive to the magnetization’s orientation of the sample.

fact depending on the magnetization direction, the electronic structure of the magnetic electrodechanges, thus the tunneling current between the two electrodes exhibits differences for a filmthat is magnetized either out-of-plane or in-plane [52, 53]. This effect has been named tunnelinganisotropic magneto-resistance (TAMR) [53] which is an extension of the known bulk AMRthat does not involve tunneling. Besides its implications in spintronics, it is appealing to use theTAMR concept in STM since even without a spin-polarized tip,magnetic information can begrasped from the tunneling current if the sample is characterized by a non-negligible SOC. TheTAMR has first been observed in STM measurements of a double-layer film of Fe on the W(110)surface [52] and was recently applied on adatoms deposited on magnetic substrates [54, 55].Since more than 10 years, SP-STM is a well-established technique which can be used to investi-gate the magnetic ground state of nanostructures down to theatomic scale [9]. In the past years,the technique has been extended to study also dynamics of magnetic systems like spin-flip pro-cesses [15, 16, 17, 18] or magnon excitation [57]. Furthermore, very recently SP-STM has beenused to probe spin relaxations of single atoms on the time scale of nanoseconds [58, 59] to fewminutes [60].In the following two subsections, the basic theoretical concepts behind SP-STM and TAMR


within STM are presented.

Bardeen’s formalism for SP-STM

The Bardeen tunneling theory can be extended to include the spin dependence. Instead of usinga single-component wave function, two components, i.e. a spinor, are necessary to describe astate of an electron with spin. For example, for the sample wave function

ψSµσ =

∑

σ′=↑,↓ψsµσσ′χσ′ , with χ↑ =

(1

0

)

, χ↓ =

(1

0

)

. (56)

One can follow the same procedure as done previously in Section 4.1 for the non spin-polarizedcase by considering the time-dependent Pauli equation of the combined system

i~∂ψ

∂t=

[

− ~2

2m∇2 + UT + US

]

ψ. (57)

Note that the wave functionψ is now a two-component spinor and the potential functions arenow two-by-two matrices,

UT =

(UT↑↑ UT↑↓UT↓↑ UT↓↓

)

, US =

(US↑↑ US↑↓US↓↑ US↓↓

)

, (58)

We follow the treatment of Wortmannet al. [61] to take the spin-polarization direction of oneof the electrodes, say, electrode T, as the reference (global spin frame of reference). In otherwords, we assume that the Hamiltonian of the tip is diagonal with respect to spin,

UT =

(UT↑↑ 0

0 UT↓↓

)

. (59)

Therefore, the two components of the wave functions of the tip-only system can be treatedseparately to satisfy the following equation (consideringthe tip only),

[

− ~2

2m∇2 + UTσσ

]

ψTνσσ(~r) = Eνσσψ

Tνσσ(~r), (60)

whereσ denotes the spin component↑ or ↓.However, in the reference frame of the tip, the state of electrode S is, in general, not diagonalizedwith respect to spin. This is evidently true for non-collinear systems since no quantization axisexists which allows a state to be written in terms of pure spin-up or spin-down character, buteven for collinear samples the states will be spin mixed if the quantization axis of the sampleand the one of the tip are not aligned in parallel. In general,the spinor of the sample-onlysystem satisfies the Pauli equation,

[

− ~2

2m∇2 +

(US↑↑ US↑↓US↓↑ US↓↓

)](ψSµ↑σψSµ↓σ

)

= Eµ

(ψSµ↑σψSµ↓σ

)

. (61)

It is useful to express the components of spinor describing the sample’s wave function in thespin-frame of reference of the tip within the local spin frame of reference related to the sample.

C6.22 S. Lounis

In this local spin-frame of referenceUS is diagonal in spin-space. This can be achieved usingthe rotation matrixU .

|ψSσ 〉 = U(θ)|ψS,loc

σ 〉, with U(θ) =

(cos (θ/2) − sin (θ/2)

sin (θ/2) cos (θ/2)

)

, (62)

whereloc stands for local spin-frame of reference of the sample andθ defines the angle betweenthe magnetization of the individual atom on the sample and the magnetization of the tip.Following the same procedure as done in the non spin-polarized case, we find in first-orderperturbation theory that the spin-dependent tunneling matrix elements are given by

Mσσ′

µν =⟨

ψTµσ′

∣∣∣UT U(θ)

∣∣∣ψS,loc

µσ

⟩

(63)

and

(M↑↑

µν M↑↓µν

M↓↑µν M↓↓

µν

)

=

(

〈ψTµ↑|UT↑↑|ψS,loc

µ↑ 〉 cos (θ/2) −〈ψTµ↑|UT↑↑|ψS,loc

µ↓ 〉 sin (θ/2)〈ψT

µ↓|UT↓↓|ψS,locµ↑ 〉 sin (θ/2) 〈ψT

µ↓|UT↓↓|ψS,locµ↓ 〉 cos (θ/2)

)

(64)

= −2π~2

m

(C↑

κ↑ψS,locµ↑ (~RT ) cos (θ/2) −C↑

κ↑ψS,locµ↓ (~RT ) sin (θ/2)

C↓

κ↓ψS,locµ↑ (~RT ) sin (θ/2)

C↓

κ↓ψS,locµ↓ (~RT ) cos (θ/2)

)

(65)

In the last equation we followed the TH model to extract the tunneling matrix elements byreplacing the wave function at the tip apex atom by a spherically symmetrics-wave. Also theChen’s rule for arbitrary orbitals can be followed in the spin-polarized case. In the following weassume that the spin-up and spin-down s-wave states can be characterized by the same decayconstantκ and the same normalization coefficientC, i.e.κσ = κ andCσ = C.The tunneling current in the spin-polarized case becomes

I(θ, V ) =2πe

~

∑

σσ′

∫ eV

0

dǫ[f(ET

F − eV + ǫ)− f(ESF + ǫ)

](66)

×nTσ′(ET

F − eV + ǫ)nSσ (E

SF + ǫ)

∣∣Mσσ′(θ, E

SF + ǫ, ET

F − eV + ǫ)∣∣2

In the TH model, the tunneling current simplifies to

I(~RT , θ, V ) =16π3C2~3e

κ2m2

∫ eV

0

dǫ[f(ET

F − eV + ǫ)− f(ESF + ǫ)

](67)

×(

nT (ETF − eV + ǫ)nS(~RT , E

SF + ǫ) + ~mT (ET

F − eV + ǫ) · ~mS(~RT , ESF + ǫ)

)

wheren is the total charge density of states (n = n↑ + n↓) of the tip or sample while~mis the magnetization vector, i.e. the corresponding ”magnetic” density of states. A furtherapproximations can be made by considering the tip to be characterized by ans-wave function.That allows to considernT to be a constant:

I(~RT , θ, V ) =16π3C2~3e

κ2m2(nTNS(~RT , V )︸︷︷︸

nonspin−polarized

+ ~mT · ~MS(~RT , V )︸︷︷︸

spin−polarized

), (68)


whereN s andMs are respectively the energy integrated charge-density andmagnetization ofthe sample’s atom at the tip location~RT . The previous equation, widely used to interpret SP-STM, shows that the tunneling current can be decomposed intoa non spin-polarized and spin-polarized contributions. In case of a non spin-polarized STM experiment, i.e., using eithera nonmagnetic tip or sample, the second term vanishes and thecurrent reduces to the classicalresult of the TH model. Furthermore, depending on the angle between the magnetization vectorsof tip and sample, the current will change.For completeness we give the corresponding differential conductivity in the spin-polarized case

dI

dV(~RT , θ, V ) ∝ (nTnS(~RT , EF + eV )

︸︷︷︸

nonspin−polarized

+ ~mT · ~mS(~RT , EF + eV )︸︷︷︸

spin−polarized

). (69)

Tunneling anisotropic magneto-resistance (TAMR)

We derived previously the tunneling current and the differential conductivity in case of a spin-polarized tip. If the tip is non spin-polarized, the currentdepends solely on the non spin-polarized part. Assume that the sample magnetization is oriented along the out-of-plane di-rection, and that one applies a magnetic field to reorient themagnetization to be in-plane. Insome cases, for instance if SOC is present, this reorientation could affect the electronic struc-ture [56]. In other words, this means thatnS then exhibits a dependence on the magnetization’sorientation.This can be noticed by considering the SOC potential

VSOC = ζ~L · ~S = ζ

(

V ↑↑SOC V ↑↓

SOC

V ↓↑SOC V ↓↓

SOC

)

(70)

whereζ is the SOC strength,~L and ~S are the orbital and angular momenta. The Hamiltonianwithout SOC,H0, is spin-diagonal and the unperturbed Bloch eigenfunctions are(ψ(0)

~kµ↑, 0)T and

(0, ψ(0)~kµ↓)

T . The Schrodinger equation for the perturbed wave functionthen reads

(

H0↑ + V ↑↑SOC −E V ↑↓

SOC

V ↓↑SOC H0↓ + V ↓↓

SOC − E

)(

ψ~kµσ↑ψ~kµσ↓

)

= 0. (71)

The potential termsVSOC↑↓ andVSOC↓↑ are responsible for flipping the spin. Solving thisequation for the minority-spin channel, i.e.σ =↓, leads for the two components of the spinor infirst-order perturbation theory:

ψ(1)~kµ↓↑ =

∑

ν

〈ψ(0)~kν↓|V

↓↑SOC|ψ

(0)~kµ↑〉

E0↑~kµ

− E0↓~kν

ψ(0)~kν↓ (72)

and

ψ(1)~kµ↓↓ = ψ

(0)~kµ↓ +

∑

ν 6=µ

〈ψ(0)~kν↓|V

↓↓SOC|ψ

(0)~kµ↓〉

E0↓~kµ

− E0↓~kν

ψ(0)~kν↓ (73)

where the index (1) stands for the first-order solution andE0↑~kµ

the eigenenergy of the stateψ0~kµ↑.

Since the DOS is related to|ψ(1)|2, it is expected that the DOS will change because of SOC in

C6.24 S. Lounis

a quadratic fashion:∼∑

σσ′

(V σσ′

SOC)2 but the denominator of the previous equations will play an

important role. Indeed if the weight of the states close to those~k where the unperturbed spin-dependent bands cross, i.e.E0σ

~kµ= E0σ′

~kµthe denominator becomes small and the bands strongly

couple and the modification of the charge can be important.To illustrate the dependence of the DOS on the SOC and rotation angle of the magnetization,we introduce a simple toy model initially proposed by Neelet al. [54, 62] that shows how thetotal DOS, and by that the tunneling current and differential conductivity, can be affected by themagnetization orientation.Assume that in the energy window of interest, we have two states, saydz2 anddzx states, in theminority spin-channel originally located at energiesǫ1 andǫ2. For simplification, we considerfull spin-polarization, meaning that no orbitals are present in the majority spin channel. Thehybridization with the background is described viaΓ1 andΓ2. The interaction between thetwo terms is provided via a hopping termt which in our case is created by SOC. The form oft is inferred from the work of Abate and Asdente [63] on bulk Fe who used a tight-bindingformalism to evaluate the matrix elements|〈dm|VSOC|dm′〉|.The matrix element connecting our orbitals are given by

|〈dzx|VSOC|dz2〉| =1

2

√3ζ sin θ sinφ (74)

for the minority spin-channel.θ andφ are the Euler angles defining the orientation of themagnetization.

We calculate the density state of this two-orbitals model byevaluating the Green functionG =

(1−H)−1 from which the imaginary part is extracted (n(E) = − 1π

2∑

m=1

ℑGmm(E)). We find

G =1

(E − ǫ1 − iΓ1)(E − ǫ2 − iΓ2)− t2

(E − ǫ1 − iΓ1 t

t E − ǫ2 − iΓ2

)

, (75)

where one notices that the diagonal elements of the Green functions,Gmm are proportionalto t2, i.e., toV 2

soc which bears the angular dependence. Thus this toy model indicates, that inthe presence of SOC, the local DOS will depend on the orientation angle of the magnetizationvector. The results obtained withζ =50 meV (approximate value for 3d transition elements)are depicted in Fig. 6(a) where the corresponding DOS is shown for two different orientations,out-of-plane (θ = 0o) and in-plane (θ = 90o, φ = 0o). One notices that changes occur for bothorbitals upon rotation. From our different formulas givingthe tunneling current it is obviousthat since the charge of the sample gets modified, the currentmagnitude will be affected by therotation of the magnetization vector. In Fig. 6(b) is presented the corresponding TAMR signal,given by n(θ=0)−n(θ=90)

n(θ=0). A value of 20% is found at the position of thed-resonances where

the large change in the DOS is observed. Experimentally, it is thus worthwhile to probe thesample at those energies where the largest TAMR effect is observed. It is interesting to checkthe angle dependence of the DOS as shown in Fig. 6(c). Interestingly, thed2z contribution to theDOS, thus the tunneling current, versus the rotation angle follows asin2 behavior in contrast tothe cosine behavior of the spin-polarized part of the tunneling current in the SP-STM geometrywhen SOC is not included.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7D

OS

(eV

-1) θ = 0

θ = 90

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Rotation angle θ (deg)

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Model (dz

2)

Fit with sin(θ)2

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2E - E

F (eV)

-20

-10

0

10

20

TA

MR

(%

)

dz

2

dzx

(a)

(b)

(c) DOS at EF

Fig. 6: (a) DOS obtained from a simple model for twod orbitals interaction via SOC (seeRefs.[54, 62]). Dashed and full lines refer to the DOS calculated when the magnetization isout-of-plane and in-plane. The corresponding TAMR signal is plotted in (b) while the variationof thedz2-DOS atEF with respect to the rotation angleθ is shown in (c).

4.5 Crystal surfaces: k||-Selection in STM

The DOS in vacuum above the substrate can be computed with ab-initio method, but for bulksystems before getting the DOS in real space a summation overk–points in reciprocal spacehas to be performed within the Brillouin zone. It is instructive to realize that not allk-pointscontribute equally to the vacuum’s DOS. Indeed on a surface probed by STM, because of sym-metry reduction only the parallel component,~k||, of the the three dimensional Bloch vector~k = (k⊥, ~k||) remains as a good quantum number. Thus in vacuum the wave function, ψ~k||µ

,describing the surface characterized on the basis of Bloch theorem by a band indexµ and awave-vector~k|| of the two-dimensional (2D) Brillouin zone is expanded intobasis functions:

ψ~k||µ(~r||, z) =

∑

α

cn~k||µdn~k||µ

(z) exp [i(~k|| + ~Gn||)~r||] (76)

which are 2D plane waves parallel to the surface.~Gn|| denotes the reciprocal lattice vectors

parallel to the surface whiledα~k||are basis functions describing the decay of the substrate’s

states into vacuum and can be obtained by solving the one-dimensional Schrodinger equation

C6.26 S. Lounis

in vacuum (

− ~2

2m

d2

dz2+ U(z)− ǫµ +

~2

2m(~k|| + ~Gα

||)2

)

dα~k||(z) = 0, (77)

for a given vacuum potentialU(z) and reference energyǫµ.In general, quantities possessing the crystal symmetry of the lattice can be expanded into a setof symmetrized functions. The local density of states (LDOS)

n(~r||, z; ǫ) =∑

~k||µ

δ(ǫ− ǫ~k||µ)|ψ~k||µ(~r||, z)|2 (78)

=∑

~k||µ

δ(ǫ− ǫ~k||µ)∑

β

nβ~k||µ

(z) exp (i ~Gβ||~r||)

whereexp i ~Gβ||~r|| are called star coefficients and

nβ~k||µ

(z) =∑

αα′

cα~k||µcα

′∗~k||µ

dα~k||µ(z)dα

′∗~k||µ

(z)δ( ~Gα|| − ~Gα′

|| ,~Gβ||) (79)

d could be thes-orbital as proposed in TH model, or one can use arbitrary orbitals according tothe derivative rule of Chen.One could grasp the behavior of the LDOS in vacuum by considering for simplicity thatU(z) =0. Thus the exact solution of the one dimensional Schrodinger equation in vacuum givesdα~k||

=

exp (−κα~k||z) wherez > 0. The decay constant

κα~k||

=√

2m|ǫµ|/~2 + (~k|| + ~Gα||)

2 (80)

and the related LDOS

nβ~k||µ

(z) =∑

αα′

cα~k||µcα

′∗~k||µ

exp[

−(κα~k||µ

+ κα′

~k||µ)z]

δ( ~Gα|| − ~Gα′

|| ,~Gβ||) (81)

show obviously a strong dependence on~k|| and on~Gα|| .

The last equations demonstrate that the decay constant is the largest and thereby the LDOS isthe smallest when contributions of|~k|| + ~Gα

|| | are significant. A decrease inκ of 0.1 A−1 couldlead to a reduction of the LDOS and of the tunneling current ofthe order of 50%.Also the nature of the lattice can affect tunneling, as demonstrated in the following example. Weshow the first three vectors responding to the smallest “stars” (m=1, 2, 3) of reciprocal latticevectors of a square lattice (see Fig. 7), which would represent the bcc(001) or fcc(001) surfaces.The corresponding reciprocal lattice vectors are~G

(1)|| = (0, 0), ~G(2)

|| = (1, 0), and~G(3)|| = (1, 1),

expressed in units of2π/a, with a being the lattice constant and the star coefficients are:

exp (i ~G(1)|| ~r||) = 1 (82)

exp (i ~G(2)|| ~r||) =

1

2[cos ( ~G||,1~r||) + cos ( ~G||,2~r||)] (83)

exp (i ~G(3)|| ~r||) = cos [( ~G||,1 + ~G||,2)~r||]. (84)

~G||,1 =2πa(1, 0) and~G||,2 =

2πa(0, 1) are the two-dimensional reciprocal lattice vectors. In Fig. 7

the star functions are displayed together with the 2D unit cell for a checkerboard structure


(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7: Star functions for a square lattice according to Ref. [38]. (a) unit cell of a square latticewith a two-atoms basis, i.e. representing a checkerboard structure. The first star function is aconstant contrary to the second one which leads to a chemicalsensitivity on the two atoms (b).The black atoms are displayed as protrusions and the white ones as depressions. Interestinglythe third star function shows equally both atoms (c).

with two different atom types. The first star function is a constant and represents the lateralconstant part of the LDOS and thereby also of the tunneling current in the TH-model. Higherstar coefficients can contribute non-trivially to the final STM image. The second coefficient forexample, allows to distinguish between the two kinds of atoms while the third coefficient doesnot, i.e., chemical sensitivity is probed only by the secondstar coefficient.Any magnetic superstructure lowers the translational symmetry. Therefore, smaller reciprocallattice vectors become relevant for the spin-polarized part of the tunneling current with coeffi-cients that are consequently exponentially larger than those of the unpolarized part.

5 Examples of simulations and experiments

5.1 Seeing the Fermi surface in real space via the induced charge oscilla-tions

Friedel oscillations define an important concept in quantummechanics. They are created afterperturbing an electron gas with an impurity. Charge and magnetic oscillations are then ob-tained in the surrounding electron gas. The shape and intensity of these oscillations containimportant information on the impurity’s electronic structure and on the band-structure of thehost material where the impurity is embedded. As mentioned earlier, STM allowed to observeFriedel oscillations induced on surfaces characterized bytwo-dimensional electronic surfacestates. These surfaces, typically, Cu(111), Ag(111) and Au(111) surfaces provided the rightplayground for experimental and theoretical investigations on charge variations induced by im-purities in a quasi-two-dimensional electron gas.

Isotropic Friedel oscillations

For Cu(111) the surface state shows a parabolic dispersion with a minimum at∼ 0.5 eV be-low the Fermi level. The corresponding band structure projected on theΓ − M line of the

C6.28 S. Lounis

2D-Brillouin zone is shown in Fig. 8(a). The shaded regions indicate the regions inE − k‖space, for which bulk eigenstates (Bloch waves) exist. Surface states can only exist in thewhite ”gap”-regions. Two such states are indicated. Of special interest is the parabolic bandwith the minimum close toEF , since this state is only partially occupied and gives rise to atwo-dimensional metallic behavior, which is of great interest for the following.

!"#$

!%#$ !&#$

!'#$ !(#$

!)#$ !*#$ !+#$

Fig. 8: (a) Surface states (dashed curves) and bulk projected bandsat a Cu(111) surface ac-cording to a six-layer surface band structure calculation [64]. In (b) and (c) illustration of therelation between the isotropic shape of the Fermi surface (black contours), group velocities (redarrows) in (b) and the corresponding induced isotropic charge oscillations in (c). In (d) and(e) is shown a comparison between the tunneling spectra obtained for a corral of Fe adatomson Cu(111) surface as measured by Crommie et al. [5] (d) to thecalculations made with theKKR method [65](e). Visualization of the quantum mirage with a mirage effect is shown in (f),(g) and (h). (f) is a topography showing an ellipse withe = 1

2and a Co atom at the left focus.

In (g) the associateddIdV

difference map shows the Kondo effect projected to the emptyrightfocus, resulting in a Co atom mirage. This experimental measurement compares well with thecalculated eigenmodes atEF (magnitude of the wave function is plotted) as shown in (h). [7]

For defects in the bulk, these Friedel oscillations of the charge perturbation vary for large dis-tancesr as1/r3 times an oscillatory function and are in the jellium model proportional to:

∆n(r) ∼ cos(2kF r + δ)

r3(85)


However in the case of adatoms on surfaces, the charge response decays for long in-planedistancesr slower than in the bulk and is determined by the surface states. In a free electronmodel, being well suited for the above surface state for Cu(111), the charge density is for largedistancesr proportional to

∆n(r) ∼ sin(2kF r + δ)

r2(86)

However, since also bulk states exist, which span most of thephase space (see Fig. 8(a)), theshort range screening of the defect is dominated by these states, while only the long rangedbehavior is determined by the surface state, which has a small wave vectorkF leading to longwave length oscillations.In Fig. 8(b) and (c), are shown the Fermi surface of a two-dimensional electron gas with groupvelocities (vectors shown in red) and the corresponding induced charge around the impuritywhich is then isotropic and circular. The shape of the induced oscillations indicate that therelated energy contour in reciprocal space is circular.Many authors have observed such long ranged oscillations around adatoms, small clusters andsteps on the Cu(111) surface in STM experiments. Most prominent among these is the workof the team of Eigleret al. [4, 5, 6, 7]. By atomic manipulations they were able to construct acorral of Fe atoms on the (111) Cu surface, and have shown thatthe surface states in the corralare more or less localized and form a discrete spectrum of resonant states. As an illustrationof these we show in Fig. 8(d) and (e) a comparison of the experimental measurements to theresult of calculations of Crampinet al. [65] obtained with the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker Greenfunction (KKR) method for a circular corral of 48 Fe atoms on the Cu(111) surface. Shownare the local density of states at the Fermi energy at 5A above the surface. Within the corralone sees a quantum well state with five maxima, correspondingto a localized state being moreor less completely confined to the corral. Outside one sees oscillations arising from scatteredsurface state electrons at the corral, which decay with distance.Let us shortly discuss the reason for the strong scattering of the surface state electrons at the Featoms. Basically in the vacuum region the full potential of Fe acts as a scattering center for thesurface wave, being much stronger than the scattering at an Fe impurity in the bulk, where onlythe change of the Fe potential with respect to the host potential is effective. Moreover the wavevectorkF is relatively small, such that the wave length is considerably larger than the spacingbetween the Fe atoms. Therefore the surface wave does not “see” the corrugation of the Fe ringand is strongly reflected as in a cylindrical well. In fact thesequence of resonances can be welldescribed by such a quantum well model, as has been shown recently [66]. The most fascinatingcorral experiments are the observation of atomic mirages inan elliptical quantum well [7]. Anellipse has the well known property that all classical wavesemanating from one of the twofocus points in every direction are reflected from the ellipse wall and focused in the secondpoint, where these waves add up coherently since each such partial wave has the same pathlength and therefore the same phase shift. This is illustrated in Figs. 8(f–h) taken from Ref. [7].Fig. 8(f) shows the STM topography for an ellipse with a giveneccentricity, including one Coatom at the left focus point. Fig. 8(g) shows thedI

dVdifference maps, i.e. the change of the STM

intensity map with respect to a small bias voltage V, which corresponds in the calculations tothe local density of states in the vacuum region at the heightof the STM tip. We see clearlytwo intensity spots, the real Co atom at the left focus and itsimage at the right focus. Thus inthe empty focus we see the same accumulation of charge in the surface state as around the Coatom; therefore the image is called a quantum mirage. In factthe Co atom is a Kondo impurity

C6.30 S. Lounis

and a strong and sharp Kondo peak appears only in a very small energy region of about 10 meVaround the Fermi level. Moreover the large mirage only appears, if one of the quantum wellstates falls into this energy region. Fig. 8(h) shows the calculated localized eigenstate observedin the experiment. The calculated local density of states compares very well with thedI

dVcurve

shown in Fig. 8(h). Thus several conditions have to be satisfied for the Co mirage to appear:(i)the Co-atom has to sit in a focus point; if it sits at another position away from the focus point,no image appears, (ii) the bias voltage has to be such, that itcoincides with an eigenstate ofthe ellipsoidal corral having maxima at the focus points, (iii) finally the image is particularlyintense, if the eigenvalue coincides with the Kondo resonance. This concept has been recentlyextended theoretically by Stepanyuk and co-workers for theinduced magnetization confined inmagnetic corrals [67].

Focusing effect

If one manages to embed a Co-impurity few layers underneath the surface and try to visualizethe induced Friedel oscillations on the surface, strange patterns are observed. Recently, we haveshown by ab-initio calculations combined with STM observations that anisotropic localized os-cillations can be observed on top of Cu(111) and Cu(001) surfaces due to the presence of buriedCo impurities [68, 69]. These anisotropic ripples show thatthe usual isotropic free-electronmodel is not valid in such real situations. We demonstrated that these intriguing features arenothing else than a visualization in real space of parts of the bulk copper Fermi surface that arerelatively flat. For the comparison between theory and STM, use is made of the Tersoff-Hamannmodel stating, as mentioned earlier, that scanning tunneling spectra can be related to the DOSin a certain energy interval in the vacuum.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9: (a) Impurity induced charge density aroundEF for an area of≈ 30× 30 A2 calculatedat a height≈ 6.1 A above the Cu(111) surface with a Co impurity sitting in the 6th layer belowthe surface. (b) Experimental STM topographies for an area of 90 × 90 A2 (−80mV, 1nA)of four Co atoms below the Cu(111) surface. (c) Fermi surfaceof copper represented alongthe (111) direction. The inverse mass tensor correspondingto the denominator of Eq. 88 isrepresented by the color in units of the inverse electron mass. Small values represented in redlead to high intensities of the charge variation.

Fig. 9(a) shows an example of the results of our simulations:the case of a Co impurity sitting


at the6th layer below the Cu(111) surface (-12.5A below the surface). The charge induced inthe vacuum has been computed up to an area of30 × 30 A2 above the impurity. One noticesthe triangular shape of the induced charge with high values at the corners of the triangle. Inaddition, a one and a half period ripple can be observed to oscillate from the red positive valueto the blue negative values and finally to the almost zero green values. The same period wasalso noticed in the STM experiment (Fig. 9(b)). To understand such a phenomenon, we start bygiving the form of the induced variation of the DOS in the vacuum at position 0 by some buriedCo impurity sitting at a position defined by~R and inducing a change in the potential∆V :

∆nvacuum(ǫ) ∼ −1

πℑ[∫ ∫

d3rd3r′G0(0, ~r; ǫ)∆V (~r)G0(~r, 0; ǫ)

]

(87)

where the Green function,G0, obtained from the KKR method, describes the pure substrate.At very large distancesR between the impurity and the vacuum site one can apply the station-ary phase approximation and end up with a result similar to that of the well-known theory ofinterlayer exchange coupling:

R2∆nvacuum ∝ 1∣∣∣d2Edk2x

· d2Edk2y

∣∣∣

. (88)

The denominator of this equation is a measure of the curvature of the constant energy surface,i.e., the shape of the constant energy surface affects the propagation of the electrons. Addition-ally, one can show that the electronic waves are directed by the group velocities. Since, statesat the Fermi energy (EF ) are probed experimentally, the constant energy surface corresponds tothe Fermi surface: a small value of the curvature means that the Fermi surface has a flat regionleading to large values of the DOS and to strong focusing of intensity in this space region deter-mined by the group velocity. In Fig. 9(c), we show the Fermi surface, computed with ab-initio,of Cu oriented with the (111)-neck direction normal to the drawing plane. The Fermi surface iscolored following the strength of the denominator of the right hand side of Eq. 88. The shapeof the low values of this denominator, corresponding to the flat regions of the Fermi surface isfound to be rather triangular along the (111) direction in accordance with our simulations of theinduced Friedel oscillations. One can understand that the flat region seen within the triangle inFigs. 9(a) and (b) is induced by the neck of the Cu Fermi surface along the (111) direction thatdoes not allow electrons to propagate.Once the shape of the propagatorG is known, either by STM-investigation or calculationsbased on density functional theory many additional effectscan be predicted. The strong di-rectionality of electron propagation even for a simple metal such as Cu, has consequencesin many fields. For example, the spatially anisotropic characteristics should also be equallypresent in the RKKY interactions between magnetic impurities. Indeed we have shown thatthe interaction between Co adatoms on Pt(111) surface or Fe adatoms on Cu(111) surface isvery anisotropic [20, 21], which is obviously induced by thesame physics discussed in thissubsection, i.e. the anisotropic shape of the Fermi surface.

5.2 Magnetism on surfaces with SP-STM

An example calculated by Heinze and collaborators [27] is shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b). A Croverlayer on Ag(111) shows a row-wise antiferromagnetic structure (actually the ground statecalculated by the authors is non-collinear, but for now we focus on the antiferromagnetic state).

C6.32 S. Lounis

The row-wise antiferromagnetism is indicated by the arrowsdrawn at the atomic positions,showing the magnetization direction of each atom. A scan of the surface with a non-magneticSTM tip will show the chemical unit cell (Fig. 10(a)): brightspots correspond to the Cr atoms,from which a tunneling current flows to the tip when the apex atom is above them. But ascan with a spin polarized tip reveals the magnetic structure (Fig. 10(b)). Instead of brightspots appearing around each atom, now bright stripes emergeat the rows with a magnetizationdirection parallel to the one of the tip, while dark stripes appear at the rows with oppositemagnetization.In these calculations, the assumption of a fully spin-polarized tip was made: i.e.nT↓(EF ) = 0.In Figs. 10(a) and (b), we see that the bright stripes (high current) appear when the substratemagnetization is parallel to the one of the tip. It should be noted that this is by no means guar-anteed for all cases; it can well be that the antiparallel orientation favors the tunneling current.Eventually a case might be encountered where the parallel and antiparallel configurations givean almost equal signal atEF . In this case spectroscopy is a very valuable tool, since onecandetect the signal at other energies, choosing a voltage for which the two spin directions giveconsiderably different results.Another example of comparison between experiment and theory is shown in Figs. 10(c) and (d)for the case of Mn overlayer on W(110) surface. This work, realized by Heinzeet al. [9], wasthe first observation of antiferromagnetism in a single magnetic layer. They found, as in theprecedent example, that nonspin-polarized tunneling electrons image the chemical surface unitcell without any magnetic contribution, whereas spin-polarized electrons probe the change intranslational symmetry due to the magnetic superstructure, which gives rise to a different imagecorresponding to the respective magnetic structure. The magnetic ground state that is antifer-romagnetic in a checkerboard arrangement of Mn atoms with magnetic moments of oppositedirection and an easy axis of the magnetization oriented in the film plane leads in the theoreticalSTM image to a stripe pattern similar to the one obtained experimentally. However, when theSTM tip is considered non-magnetic, all Mn atoms become equivalent in the chemical unit celland the STM-pattern becomes diamond-like both experimentally and theoretically. A detaileddiscussion on magnetism and in particular on magnetism at surfaces is given in ChapterC 4 byS. Blugel.

5.3 Magnetic domain walls with TAMR-STM

The first experimental verification of the dependence of the DOS on the magnetization orien-tation was provided experimentally by Bodeet al. [52] using a non spin-polarized STM on Fedouble layers deposited on W(110) substrate. This effect discussed in Section 4.4, was alreadypredicted theoretically [56]. The substrate chosen by Bodeet al. is well known for having ananometer-scale domain structure. In other words, the magnetization of the sample rotates atthe nanometer-scale as shown in Fig. 11(a) and the idea is to probe the rotation of the magne-tization at different positions using the spectroscopic mode, i.e. to measure thedI/dV spectra.

Interestingly, the domain walls are visible with a non-magnetic W tip (see Fig. 11(b)) alongthe different stripes propagating lateraly: At the position of the domain wall the differentialconductivitydI/dV is reduced with respect to the domain. As revealed by the local tunnelingspectra (Fig. 11(c)), this contrast is caused by a tiny difference which is energetically locatedjust aboveEF (see inset): while thedI/dV spectrum measured with the tip positioned above thedomain exhibits a weak peak at a bias of 0.07 eV, this peak is almost absent in the domain wall


a b

!"#$$

%&'$$ %('$$A B

%)'$$%*'$$

Fig. 10: Calculated STM picture of an antiferromagnetic Cr monolayer on Ag(111) fcc surfaceafter Ref. [27] and Mn monolayer on W(110) surface after Ref.[9]. In (a) shows the resultobtained assuming a non spin-polarized tip, revealing the chemical unit-cell (drawn parallelo-gram); Cr atoms appear as white filled circles. In (b) a spin-polarized tip with magnetizationdirection in-plane as indicated. In this case the magnetic unit cell emerges (drawn as a rectan-gle), giving alternating black and white stripes. The drawnarrows indicate the magnetizationdirection of each Cr atom. A comparison of SP-STM measurements and first-principles calcu-lations for the case of Mn layer on W(110) is shown in (c) considering a non-magnetic tip andin (d) when the tip is magnetic. Once more the unit-cell of thecalculated magnetic ground stateis shown in the insets of (c) and (d).

spectra. This is further illustrated in the lower part of Fig. 11(c) by the plot of the TAMR ratiocalculated as[(dI/dV )D − (dI/dV )W]/[(dI/dV )D + (dI/dV )W], where thedI/dV are takenwithin the domain (D) or at the domaine wall (W).3 For comparison, first-principles calculationsof the LDOS and TAMR ratio on the same system including SOC were performed consideringdifferent rotations (out-of-plane and in-plane) of the magnetic moments are shown in Fig. 11(d).The agreement is good and it is found theoretically that the two minority-spindz2 states at theFe surface lead to pronounced peaks at -0.18 and +0.85 eV and can be identified with theexperimental peaks at -0.08 eV and +0.7 eV. A closer look (cf.inset in Fig. 11(d)) reveals asignificant enhancement of the LDOS for the out-of-plane magnetized film within an energyinterval of about 100 meV aboveEF . The theoretical TAMR signal is qualitatively in line

3If the ratio is calculated on the original data (as measured), a pronounced oscillation can be found just belowEF . This oscillation is not caused by any additional or missingspectroscopic features in the domain wall of thedI/dV spectrum with respect to the spectrum measured at domains but by an overall energetic shift∼ 11 meV.The physical origin is different work functions in domains and domain walls. After correction, the oscillationbelowEF has almost perfectly disappeared.

C6.34 S. Lounis

50 nm

∆!!"!##!$%&!

domain wall

dI/dU

sig

nal [n

A/V

]

sample bias [V]

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

as measured corr. by ∆E

no

rm. d

iff.

0.0 0.1 0.2-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

5

0

-5no

rm.

dif

f. [%

]energy [eV]

L

DO

S [

arb

. u

nit

s]

!"#$ !%#$

!&#$ !'#$

!(#$ !)#$

Fig. 11: (a) Measurement of a domain wall with an STM-probe at different location: withinthe domain and at the domain-wall. (b) shows an image of thedI/dV signal measured on two-monolayers Fe deposited on W(110) substrate. Stripes of∼ 50 nm widths can be observed withbright (within the domain∼ in-plane orientation of the magnetization) and dark (at thedomain-wall ∼ out-of-plane orientation of the magnetization) regions. In (c) and (d) are shown thebias-dependence of thedI/dV signal and the theoretical LDOS at different locations: domain(in-plane magnetization) and domain-wall (out-of-plane)regions. A TAMR ratio is computedand shown in lower parts of (c) and (d). The band-structure calculated without (e) and withSOC (f) demonstrates the impact of SOC and of the orientationof the magnetization on theelectronic structure of the sample. Figures taken and adapted from Ref.[52]

with the experimental signal: The peak at -0.3 eV could be identified with the experimentalpeak at -0.24 eV. The origin of the dependence of the LDOS on SOC can be traced back to thechange of the band-structure once the magnetization is rotated as discussed in Section 4.4. Theband-structure without and with SOC are plotted in Figs. 11(e) and (f). States at theΓ pointdecay the lowest into vacuum (as discussed in Section 4.5). Around -0.18 eV and +0.05 eV, thedz2-band crosses theΓ-point. Because of their appropriate extension in thez-direction, thedz2orbitals decay slower into the vacuum compared to thedxz anddyz orbitals. Interestingly, thecrossing of the minorityd bands that occured without SOC is avoided once SOC is included


and if the magnetization is rotated out-of-plane (red line in Fig. 11(f)). This has a strong impactby shifting, for example, the crossing of the bands at theΓ-point. Overall such a small effectis enough to induce a change in the LDOS that is observable with STM. We note that the useof TAMR within STM was recently extended to probe adatoms deposited on surfaces withmagnetic domain walls [54, 55].

Acknowledgment

I would like to acknowledge the HGF-YIG Programme VH-NG-717(Functional NanoscaleStructure and Probe Simulation Laboratory–Funsilab) for financial support.

References

[1] G. Binnig, H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber and E. Weibel, Appl. Phys. Lett.40, 178 (1982).

[2] G. Binnig, H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber and E. Weibel, Phys. Rev.Lett. 49, 57 (1982).

[3] G. Binnig, H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber and E. Weibel, Phys. Rev.Lett. 50, 120 (1983).

[4] D. M. Eigler and E. K. Schweizer, Nature344, 524 (1990).

[5] M. F. Crommie, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler, Science262, 218 (1993).

[6] E. J. Heller, M. F. Crommie, C. P. Lutz and D. M. Eigler, Nature369, 466 (1994).

[7] H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz and D. M. Eigler, Nature403, 512 (2000).

[8] R. Wiesendanger, H.-J. G”untherodt, G. G”untherodt, R.J. Gambino and R. Ruf, Phys.Rev. Lett.65, 247 (1990).

[9] S. Heinze, M. Bode, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, X. Nie, S. Blugel and R. Wiesendanger,Science288, 1805 (2000).

[10] S. Blugel, M. Weinert and P. H. Dederichs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1077 (1988).

[11] M. Bode, M. Heide, K. von Bergmann, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, A. Kubetzka,O. Pietzsch, S. Blugel and R. Wiesendanger, Nature447, 190 (2007).

[12] S. Loth, S. Baumann, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler and A. J. Heinrich, Science335, 196 (2012).

[13] S. Holzberger, T. Schuh, S. Blugel, S. Lounis and W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. Lett.110,157206 (2013).

[14] B. C. Stipe, M. A. Razaei and W. Ho, Science,279, 5358 (1998).

[15] A. J. Heinrich, J. A. Gupta, C. P. Lutz and D. M. Eigler, Science306, 5695 (2004).

[16] C. F. Hirjibehedin, C. P. Lutz, A. J. Heinrich, Science,312, 5776 (2006).

[17] T. Balashov, T. Schuh, A. F. Takacs, A. Ernst, S. Osctanin, J. Henk, I. Merting, P. Bruno,T. Miyamachi, S. Suga and W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 257203 (2009).

C6.36 S. Lounis

[18] A. A. Khajetoorians, S. Lounis, B. Chilian, A. T. Costa,L. Zhou, D. L. Mills, J. Wiebeand R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 037205 (2011).

[19] S. W. Wu, N. Ogawa and W. Ho, Science312, 5778 (2003).

[20] L. Zhou, J. Wiebe, S. Lounis, E. Vedmendenko, F. Meier, S. Blugel, P. H. Dederichs, R.Wiesendanger, Nature Physics6, 187 (2010).

[21] A. A. Khajetoorians, J. Wiebe, B. Chilian, S. Lounis, S.Blugel, R. Wiesendanger, NaturePhysics8, 497 (2012).

[22] C.J. Chen,Introduction to Scanning Tunneling Microscopy(Oxford University Press, Ox-ford, 1993).

[23] J. Tersoff and D.R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1998 (1983).

[24] J. Tersoff and D.R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B31, 805 (1985).

[25] C.J. Chen, Phys. Rev. B42, 8841 (1990).

[26] C. J. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 448 (1990).

[27] S. Heinze, P. Kurz, D. Wortmann, G. Bihlmayer, G. Bihlmayer and S. Blugel, Appl. Phys.A 75, 25 (2002).

[28] N. Lorente and M. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2997 (2000).

[29] N. Lorente and J. P. Gauyacq, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 176601 (2001).

[30] M. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 050801 (2009).

[31] J. Fernandez-Rossier, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 256802 (2009).

[32] J. Fransson, Nano Lett.9, 2414 (2009).

[33] A. Hurley, N. Baadji, and S. Sanvito, Phys. Rev. B86, 125411 (2012).

[34] S. Lounis, A. T. Costa, R. B. Muniz and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 187205 (2010).

[35] S. Lounis, A. T. Costa, R. B. Muniz and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B83, 035109 (2011).

[36] H.-J. Gunterodt and R. Wiesendanger (Ed.),Scanning Tunneling Microscopy I–III,(Springer, Heidelberg, 1994–1996).

[37] R. Wiesendanger,Scanning Probe Microscopy and Spectroscopy: Methods and Applica-tions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).

[38] S. Heinze, First-Principles Theory of Scanning Tunneling MicroscopyApplied toTransition-Metal Surfaces, PhD thesis, University of Hamburg (2000).

[39] W. A. Hofer, A. S. Foster and A. L. Schluger, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, (2003).

[40] M. Bode, Rep. Prog. Phys.66, 523 (2003).


[41] R. Wiesendanger, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1495 (2009).

[42] A. van Housel and H. J. W. Zandvliet, Rev. Mod. Phys.82 1593 (2010).

[43] J. P. Gauyacq, N. Lorente and F. D. Novaes, Prog. Surf. Sci. 87, 63 (2012).

[44] S. Blugel, Theorie der Rastertunnelimikroskopie, in the lecture notes of the 30th IFFSpring School, Forschungszentrum Julich (1999).

[45] K. K. Saha, J. Henk, A. Ernst, and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B77, 085427 (2008).

[46] C. F. Quate,Vacuum Tunneling: A New Technique for Microscopy, Physics Today, 26(1986).

[47] J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. Lett.6, 57 (1961).

[48] M. Julliere, Physics Letters A,54 225 (1975).

[49] J. Slonczewski, Phys. Rev. B,39, 6995 (1989).

[50] J. S. Moodera, L. R. Kinder, T. M. Wong and R. Meservey, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 3273(1995).

[51] T. Yaoi, S. Ishio and T. Miyazaki, J. Mag. Mag. Mat.126, 430 (1993).

[52] M. Bode, S. Heinze, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, X. Nie, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blugel and R.Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 237205 (2002).

[53] C. Gould, C. Ruster, T. Jungwirth, E. Girgis, G. M. Schott, R. Giraud, K. Brunner, G.Schmidt and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 117203 (2004).

[54] N. Neel, S. Schroder, N. Ruppelt, P. Ferriani, J. Kroger, R. Berndt and S. Heinze, Phys.Rev. Lett.110, 037202 (2013).

[55] D. Serrate, P. Ferriani, Y. Yoshida, S-W. Hla, M. Menzel, K. von Bermann, S. Heinze, A.Kubetzka, R. Wiesendanger, Nature Nanotechnology,5, 350 (2010).

[56] A. Lessard, T. H. Moos, and W. Hubner, Phys. Rev. B56, 2594 (1997).

[57] T. Balashov, A. F. Takacs, M. Dane, A. Ernst, P. Bruno,W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. B78,1774404 (2008).

[58] S. Loth, M. Etzkorn, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler, A. J. Heinrich, Science329, 5999 (2010).

[59] A. A. Khajetoorians, B. Baxevanis, C. Hubner, T. Schlenk, S. Krause, T. O. Wehling,S. Lounis, A. Lichtenstein, D. Pfannkuche, J. Wiebe and R. Wiesendanger, Science339,6115 (2013).

[60] T. Miyamachi, T. Schuh, T. Markl, C. Bresch, T. Balashov, A. Stohr, C. Karlewski, S.Andre, M. Marthaler, M. Hoffmann, M. Geilhufe, S. Ostanin, W. Hergert, I. Mertig, G.Schon, A. Ernst and W. Wulfhekel, Nature503, 242 (2013).

[61] D. Wortmann, S. Heinze, Ph. Kurz, G. Bihlmayer and S. Bl¨ugel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4132(2001).

C6.38 S. Lounis

[62] S. Schroder,First-Principles Study of Non-Collinear Magnetism and Spin-Orbit DrivenPhysics in Nanostructures at Surfaces, PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel(2013).

[63] E. Abate and M. Asdente, Phys. Rev. B140, A1303 (1965).

[64] A. Euceda, D. M. Bylander and L. Kleinman, Phys. Rev. B28, 528 (1983).

[65] S. Crampin and O. R. Bryant, Phys. Rev. B54, 17367 (1996).

[66] B. Lazarovits, B.Ujfalussy, L. Szunyogh, B. L. Gyorffy and P. Weinberger, J.Phys.:Condens. Matter17, S1037 (2005).

[67] V. S. Stepanyuk, L. Niebergall, W. Hergert and P. Bruno,Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 187201.

[68] A. Weismann, M. Wenderoth, S. Lounis, P. Zahn, N. Quaas,R. G. Ulbrich, P. H. Dederichsand S. Blugel, Science323, 1190 (2009).

[69] S. Lounis, P. Zahn, A. Weismann, M. Wenderoth, R. G. Ulbrich, I. Mertig, P. H. Dederichsand S. Blugel, Phys. Rev. B83, 035427 (2011).

c 6 theory of scanning tunneling microscopy1 - arxiv · pdf filearxiv:1404.0961v1...

Documents